I have a player who is playing a neutral good character, and wants to take monk levels (master of many styles-archetype). The alignment restriction on Monks (lawful only) prohibits this.
The player is providing good fluff reasoning as to why her character is interested in the archetype, and points out that there's precedence - the Martial Artist archetype ignores the alignment requirement.
There's no real time press since the game is in hiatus for the summer. That said, at the moment I'm inclined to agree with the player and handwave the requirement away.
However, I'd be interested to hear what the Paizo community has to say on the topic - is there any particular reasons why the monk is, or should remain, Lawful-only?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone has to say it, and this time i'm the one to have the doubius honor. So there i go.
Allignment-based class restriction are b#++~+~@.
Here, done, let the thread begin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The primary argument against allowing this change that I've seen is that it would allow a Monk/Barbarian multiclass. This issue is predicated on the argument that some players are powergamers, so all rules must be written to prevent powergamers from powergaming.
I let my party's monk be true neutral because he doesn't want to be lawful. He doesn't want to be a barbarian and doesn't care that I still preserve that restriction, so we're all good.
We also take a different approach to alignment; the 'lawful' is a global opinion of the rule of law and its strength. The monk still has to be an ordered mind that follows the guidelines of his order, but that doesn't mean he has to follow the idea of 'law' as a driving purpose in the world. So he's lawful in terms of his monk school's rules but not in terms of the official alignment requirements.
The game is all about the GM/player relationship. If your player isn't trying to game the system in order to roll a monk/barbarian and is willing to accept that he has to follow some kind of ordered life (the monk's power comes from rulership over the body and the ordered mind which is required to do so) though not officially Lawful by the overarching divine spectrum, then it should be fine.
If he's just angling for a monk/barbarian powerhouse then say no.
Someone has to say it, and this time i'm the one to have the doubius honor. So there i go.
Allignment-based class restriction are b!%*&#%#.
Here, done, let the thread begin.
If you hadn't said it, I was going to.
It's a meaningless, pointless, stupid restriction.
"I've been lying a lot lately, so suddenly I can't learn how to punch people in the face better." How does that make ANY sense?
I successfully removed alignment en toto from 3e. Wouldn't be too hard to do it to PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That stuck out to me as well. Would a monk/barbarian be so powerful as to break the game?
I'm also tryign to decide if such a combination should be referred to as a monkbarian or a bonk.
... obviously I vote for bonk.
The primary argument against allowing this change that I've seen is that it would allow a Monk/Barbarian multiclass. This issue is predicated on the argument that some players are powergamers, so all rules must be written to prevent powergamers from powergaming.I'm not seeing it. What does this class combination provide that is gamebreaking, let alone more gamebreaking than some of the options already available?
Good question.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are lawful because their class is training to become some sort of enlightened being.
For those who just want to punch things, you /can/ have a monk without a lawful alignment, technically, but you have to give up a lot of the associated monk mumbo-jumbo to get it.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/monk.html #_martial-artist-(archetype)
Essentially a monk without the ki powers, slow falls, or wuxia stuff that we come to associate with them. Immunity to disease goes out the window for immunity to fatigue, exhaustion and the like.
However, I'd be interested to hear what the Paizo community has to say on the topic - is there any particular reasons why the monk is, or should remain, Lawful-only?
As others have said, the alignment restrictions aren't the best thing in the world and plenty of people would be happier without them.
Anyways, you would be able to multiclass monk with a barbarian or anti-paladin. I guess if that's an awful idea to you? The big upside is you would have more freedom for character creation.
Not a fan of the martial artist archetype myself. Giving up the chance to take every other archetype means it isn't a real fix.
|
|
Dunno about fixes. I do admittedly enforce a 'one archetype only' rule at my table though so thats not really an issue.
I find it handy for an explanation of powerful fighters without having them be semi-mystical beings. (It also explains those anarchic sianghams that show up in random loot generation).
Dunno about fixes. I do admittedly enforce a 'one archetype only' rule at my table though so thats not really an issue.
Its a fix because its the only way to allow a non lawful monk at the table RAW, beyond a very limited trait. Its a bad fix because it means only a single archetype can do it, never mind me wanting to play a non lawful master of many styles or sohei or zen archer or tetori or any of those other archetypes.
Personally, I think one archetype only is a bit arbitrary, but your houserules so whatever works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment restrictions exist to try and maintain some sort of balance.
No, alignment has nothing to do with balance. Fluff doesn't balance mechanics. It has to do with an arbitrary decision made by the developers, and absolutely nothing to do with balance. Its mostly a legacy thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment restrictions are a good part of this game, so they should be kept. It helps the flavor immensely. If you want to be an NG 'monk' then play something like an oracle that uses unarmed strikes or monk weapons.
Alignment restrictions are a good part of this game, so they should be kept. It helps the flavor immensely. If you want to be an NG 'monk' then play something like an oracle that uses unarmed strikes or monk weapons.
Because your gaming experience is greatly improved by being told to play something else that is nothing like what you wanted and being told you can't play what you wanted because arbitrary? No thanks.
More options is good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are lawful because their disciplines require... well, discipline. A regimen. Strict adherence to a specific path of routines, practices, rituals, etc. Whether it would unbalance the game is unimportant; it would violate the tone of the monk.
And tone trumps mechanics every time--at least, in our group it does.
A class is simply a series of level-locked mechanical constructs. The flavor you choose to apply to it is your own decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment restrictions are a good part of this game, so they should be kept. It helps the flavor immensely. If you want to be an NG 'monk' then play something like an oracle that uses unarmed strikes or monk weapons.
It restricts the flavor pointlessly.
I don't really see any issues with allowing a NG Monk. Heck is 3.5 the stated reasons why Ember the LN monk and Mialee TN wizards were their given alignments seems like the exact same thing! I guess this allows someone to be a monk/bard or monk barbarian or a monk/druid thats not LN. However, I'm not seeing an issue here.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment restrictions are a good part of this game, so they should be kept. It helps the flavor immensely. If you want to be an NG 'monk' then play something like an oracle that uses unarmed strikes or monk weapons.Because your gaming experience is greatly improved by being told to play something else that is nothing like what you wanted and being told you can't play what you wanted because arbitrary? No thanks.
More options is good.
the alignement restrictions for classes are mostly flavor and role playing. For monks it is to represent that it takes a lot of discipline to work at perfecting yourself.
they are not really mechanically important. But they are important for the flavor of the class and world. If you as a GM want to allow non Lawfull monks, then go ahead.
BTW, MrSin (just to play devils advocate), would you allow a Chaotic Evil cleric of a good deity? After all, more options are good..
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are lawful because their disciplines require... well, discipline. A regimen. Strict adherence to a specific path of routines, practices, rituals, etc. Whether it would unbalance the game is unimportant; it would violate the tone of the monk.
And tone trumps mechanics every time--at least, in our group it does.
That's kind of a ridiculous argument, you know?
The Weapon Master archetype of Fighter requires discipline. "Devoted to the perfection of a single weapon, the weapon master’s meditations upon his favored weapon border on the obsessive, but none can deny his consummate skill." Yet, strangely, no alignment restriction.
Being a Wizard requires remarkable discipline and dedication. I suppose you think that they should all be lawful?
All of the Heroic classes require a high degree of dedication to master. Maybe all of those should be lawful, as well.
I'm sorry you think it would violate the tone of the monk. I'm sorry you've drunk that kool-aid.
No, alignment has nothing to do with balance. Fluff doesn't balance mechanics.A paladin is basically a fighter who gets some divine bonuses, in trade they have to behave a certain way. A barbarian is basically a fighter who gets rage powers, in trade they have to behave a certain way. Cavaliers have no alignment restriction, but are expected to live according to their edicts in order to maintain any of the bonuses that they get as a cavalier. If the GM ignores this then it is, as you call it, just fluff. If the GM actually understands how alignment is supposed to work then it is not.
And yet, none of those classes are notably more powerful than others, and objectively weaker than the no-restrictions wizard.
You have also proven quite well how alignment doesn't work. Mechanics should be mechanics, fluff should be fluff. Again, explain to me how 'I lied a lot lately, so now I can't learn to punch people in the face harder' makes a lick of sense.
they are not really mechanically important. But they are important for the flavor of the class and world. If you as a GM want to allow non Lawfull monks, then go ahead.
BTW, MrSin (just to play devils advocate), would you allow a Chaotic Evil cleric of a good deity? After all, more options are good..
Personally, I'm fine with monks that don't come from monasteries or who are chaotic even with all their training. I think creating a blanket that they all come from monasteries or all act in a certain fashion is limiting, and terrible for game design in a roleplaying game where people want to bring creative ideas for the table. Suggest it sure, but make it a mandate and it crosses a line.
Yes, I'm fine with that. However that's mostly because in my games there aren't alignment restrictions. He'd still have to follow the deity or an aspect. So unless that deity is the actual god of the aspect of evil and puppy kicking and he is for some reason playing a cleric about good and not puppy kicking, there probably won't be a problem. I much prefer clerics of the ideal myself, which I do happen to allow.
No, alignment has nothing to do with balance. Fluff doesn't balance mechanics.A paladin is basically a fighter who gets some divine bonuses, in trade they have to behave a certain way. A barbarian is basically a fighter who gets rage powers, in trade they have to behave a certain way. Cavaliers have no alignment restriction, but are expected to live according to their edicts in order to maintain any of the bonuses that they get as a cavalier. If the GM ignores this then it is, as you call it, just fluff. If the GM actually understands how alignment is supposed to work then it is not.
A paladin and a barbarian aren't a fighter. If you try to balance mechanics with fluff you give someone no reason to play a class. You just say "Hey I'm CE today. I think I'll be an anti-paladin!" Worse yet, a monk isn't actually all that better than a fighter, and wizards have no alignment restriction but are easily one of the most powerful classes. Clerics and druids aren't very limited either, still pretty powerful. Nor sorcerers, or oracles...
"I know alignment better than you!" is a terrible argument btw. It is actually stated by the developers that fluff doesn't balance mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, MrSin (just to play devils advocate), would you allow a Chaotic Evil cleric of a good deity? After all, more options are good..
Why not? Religious texts are the easiest things in the world to interpret in such a way as to cherry-pick to find something that suits the ideas, opinions, and biases that you already possess (real world examples NOT forthcoming).
That's kind of a ridiculous argument, you know?You are confusing dedication with discipline. A wizard is dedicated enough to study their texts and rely on their high intelligence to memorize it. A monk will stand on a post in the middle of a swamp and not swat the mosquitoes which requires discipline.
As someone else pointed out earlier this doesn't mean that refusing to lie makes you punch any better, but a monk's respect for discipline might make them apply to all areas of their lives which would lean more towards lawful than chaotic.
Both of those are ways the character COULD be played. It should not be the way the character MUST be played.
Didn't one of the D&D designers from way back say that monk alignment restrictions were there so fewer people would play them?
System mastery, and all that nonsense.
Didn't one of the D&D designers from way back say that monk alignment restrictions were there so fewer people would play them?
System mastery, and all that nonsense.
The version I heard (with every alignment restriction in 3e) was that the designers knew they were stupid and useless and pointlessly restricting, but the small pool of playtesters they had went ballistic about it, so they put their spines away for the time being.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not? Religious texts are the easiest things in the world to interpret in such a way as to cherry-pick to find something that suits the ideas, opinions, and biases that you already possess (real world examples NOT forthcoming).
BTW, MrSin (just to play devils advocate), would you allow a Chaotic Evil cleric of a good deity? After all, more options are good..
The worlds that I have created and run, the PF default world, and many I have played in, all call for "active deities". In these style worlds, Alignment is not a fuzzy line, but a fairly hard line. Your characters alignment dictates what is going to happen to them after death, and how the divine powers treat you. Taking this into account, in worlds like this, a deity would be perfectly within character to deny power to a cleric if they do not match up fairly closely to the alignment of the power (for example the "one step off" rule in PF). Your following of the religion is not based off of your interpretation of the texts, but the deity's. Much harder to cherry-pick then.
This all has very little to do with mechanical balance, and a lot to do with how you want your world to feel/be.
For the most part, this same attitude has gone into creating the base classes. The developer team has had visions on how they want that class to be perceived/played as default, and build some of the RP in accordingly.
I am all for logical changes to the rules depending on the world you want to run and the fun of your gaming group. As long as they are consistent.
At least they dropped the illiterate restrictions on Barbarians. That one always drove me nuts and was ignored often.
The version I heard (with every alignment restriction in 3e) was that the designers knew they were stupid and useless and pointlessly restricting, but the small pool of playtesters they had went ballistic about it, so they put their spines away for the time being.Didn't one of the D&D designers from way back say that monk alignment restrictions were there so fewer people would play them?
System mastery, and all that nonsense.
I have heard this story as well, although it was word of mouth so I can't be sure how true it is.
Alignment is not a fuzzy line, but a fairly hard line.
Which is why we can all agree on morality and alignment and there are never any threads asking about it ever? I usually prefer flexibility myself, helps make everyone happy.
Chaotic characters can act lawful if it suits them.
Acting chaotic is against the principles of a lawful character.
It's a lot easier to be chaotic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are lawful pretty much entirely because of legacy flavor. Dispense with the restriction as you see fit, just keep in mind that some people might prefer the old flavor even if it restricts choices. In fact, play test feedback was the strongest factor for keeping alignment restrictions for some classes simply because it was a part of what made D&D D&D.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is not a fuzzy line, but a fairly hard line.Which is why we can all agree on morality and alignment and there are never any threads asking about it ever? I usually prefer flexibility myself, helps make everyone happy.
I did state that these where the games I played in and have run. Each gaming group has a different treatment for alignment. Personal preference and all. These personal preferences are why any discussion on alignment on these boards gets so heated if allowed to go on for any real length of time.
I do not mind the flexibility, but I also expect my character choices and actions to have consequences/benefits in both the populous and with divine powers. A character who does evil acts (in according to the views of the deities), will gain the attention of the deities whose portfolios the acts fall in.
In the worlds I have created, monks come from temples/sects and have their own rules that go along with that sect. To play a monk, you must choose which temple trained you, and your powers go with their rules. At high level, if you want to create your own temple as a character "retirement" I expect you to write up the rules that the temple follows, and it will be available to future monks. Also, not all temples have the same alignment requirements, and I tweak some of the rules of the monks to show this (effectively they are all arch-types). If a monk comes from a chaotic based temple, the ki strike goes chaotic instead of lawful for example. I do similar things with other classes, as that is the type of world that I chose to create/run as a GM.
But this is thread is not really about alignment in general, but the effects of removing alignment restrictions from a class. From what I can see, the restrictions are mostly flavor, and if you are going to remove them, go for it, as long as it fits the game style and world flavor you want to run.
I have no particular problem with alignment restrictions, but the lawful monk requirement is a straightjacket, not a restriction.
I would love it if the neutral alignments were opened to monks, but they were still restricted from taking chaotic alignments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I am going to relax the alignment restrictions on monks to N/L and also allow Chaotic alignments if the player makes a good case for why his monk can "make it work".
Thank you all for your input :)
|
In short: alignment restrictions are about flavour. If you and your group aren't attached to the flavour of a lawful monk, then feel free to get rid of it. It won't break your game (even if someone's playing a monkbarian).
For those who just want to punch things, you /can/ have a monk without a lawful alignment, technically, but you have to give up a lot of the associated monk mumbo-jumbo to get it.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/monk.html #_martial-artist-(archetype)
Or you're adopted by one or more Aasimar and are an Enlightened Warrior.
That stuck out to me as well. Would a monk/barbarian be so powerful as to break the game?
I'm also tryign to decide if such a combination should be referred to as a monkbarian or a bonk.
... obviously I vote for bonk.
I prefer monkbarian and given that you can already play one for the cost of one trait I don't see why this should dissuade anyone from dropping the alignment restriction.
Monks are lawful because their disciplines require... well, discipline. A regimen. Strict adherence to a specific path of routines, practices, rituals, etc. Whether it would unbalance the game is unimportant; it would violate the tone of the monk.
There are characters I would describe as “disciplined” who I would not describe as “lawful” - including a number of martial artists I know.
It's the guy who wants to take some karate classes at the local YMCA vs the guy who wants to move to Tibet and study under a master. The second one is going to have to be willing to make some lifestyle changes.
And those lifestyle changes might involve abandoning ties to family, country, etc., which is something a chaotic person is more likely to do in pursuit of a personal goal than a lawful person is. Also lifestyle changes involve willingness to embrace change which is chaotic.
BTW, MrSin (just to play devils advocate), would you allow a Chaotic Evil cleric of a good deity? After all, more options are good..
I'd be OK with that in a world in which deities were sufficiently distant to their followers not to notice and/or care if someone is using their powers in a way that they wouldn't approve of.
This thread does illustrate a strange perceptual bias however (formed in the initial framing of the question) why not reword it to be remove the alignment restriction for Barbarians?
Because the OP has a player wanting to try a NG monk? Also, barbarians are “non-lawful”, which allows twice as many alignments as “lawful” or “chaotic.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since you are the DM and know your player best, I wonder whether a change of alignment might still be the simplest solution. In training to become a monk, the character became more disciplined. Where he previously had no allegiance to law or chaos, his improved discipline tilted him towards law.
But the player does not want to be of lawful alignment. The question for you as a DM would then be -- what sorts of things can this character do as a neutral good character that he would no longer be able to do as a lawful good character? If neither you nor the player can come up with anything of consequence, you could consider just changing the alignment on his character sheet and playing the character as before.
Whatever you decide, the character will not be overpowered -- Pathfinder is much nicer to single classed characters than to multiclassed characters. What class is he multiclassing from? There are probably issues with how to combine monk with another class that will give your player more problems than the alignment issue.